Make your lenses "better"

Sony NEX-7 Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Nokton

Images by David and Ann Taylor-Hughes

The great thing about the new version of Adobe Camera Raw, with its auto CA removal, is that it provides a software fix that makes lenses perform "better". Camera / Lens manufacturers have been doing this with their own brands for years, but now Adobe have provided a method of their own for lenses that aren't "compensated for" in this way.  Whether or not you think this is a good thing and that lenses should be made to optimum quality in the first place, the answer is that they are not. That budget zoom suddenly takes on a new life.

I tried this on some old images taken with lenses that suffered quite badly from CA, and the improvement was very noticeable.

Canon 5D 16-35mm f/2.8

Nikon D3 28-200mm zoom

 The Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens, but does also suffer a bit from CA. Now it doesn't.

Sony NEX-7 Zeiss 24mm f/1.8

Sony NEX-7 Zeiss 24mm f/1.8

The Sony e-mount 18-55mm zoom lens is now looking like a bargain.

 

Sony NEX-7 18-55mm zoom

My Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Heliar lens is another that benefits from this "cleanup"

Sony NEX-7 Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Heliar

So, I'm very impressed. The "blue branches against the sky" problem still persists and I'd love a software fix to remove that as I still have to do it manually, but overall the auto CA removal works very well indeed. Not 100% but pretty close from my observations so far.

In fact ACR 7 seems to provide much "cleaner" images overall and I suspect that there are other "tweaks" in there as well. A photographer who contributed pictures to my picture library a few years ago, told me that he couldn't see the point of raw files. He converted his to tiffs and then deleted the raw versions for ever. I told him then I thought he was crazy and this is why. Just like I have kept transparencies that weren't as I would like, and can now "improve" them using Photoshop. In the same way many of my digital files that have been languishing unused can now benefit from these improvements in raw conversion.

Finally I went out a couple of days ago with my Olympus E-P2, 12mm and 45mm lenses. The 12mm does suffer from some CA certainly and I wanted to see just what kind of quality I could squeeze out of m4/3 and whether this new raw conversion software could improve the results.

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8 lens

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2 lens

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2 lens

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8 lens

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2 lens

I was very pleased with the results. I used a tripod for all shots, and it does go to show that careful exposure and processing can contribute more to getting top class results than any manufacturers "gobbledygook" telling you what a difference their new sensor technology or whatever will do. This "antique" camera produced some excellent pictures. I upsized a few of them to 16MP, removed the exif data and uploaded them my "fussiest" picture library who accepted them all without any problem. 

As far as I'm concerned, image quality has always been about more than pixel size and supposed sensor and lens performance anyway. Any decent lens when used on a tripod and at its optimum aperture will be able to produce excellent results. I'm as guilty as anybody at being seduced by the "next big thing" but ultimately getting the exposure and processing right is just as, or even more, important than "whats in the box". 

Adobe don't get everything right, but they are to be applauded for their new version of ACR. It really does make a difference. Photoshop CS6 is a free download at the moment, and I strongly suggest you give it a try. It could probably make more of a difference to your pictures than that hot new camera currently tempting you.

Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ - review

Olympus E-P2 m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Panasonic GX1 Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Olympus E-PL3 m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Here's the original Olympus press release on the lens:-

"Olympus adds to its powerfully simple and growing PEN family with the first fully-compatible interchangeable Micro Four Thirds lens to incorporate an electronic motorized zoom. The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ (35mm equivalent 24–100mm) delivers smooth, quiet zooming that gives you versatility, portability and

maximizes the performance of the Olympus PEN^® compact system cameras.

The sophisticated new lens has a zoom ratio of approximately 4.2x, allowing photographers to capture anything from detailed, wide-angle group shots to medium telephoto-range images so you can get up close and personal for intimate portraits of children and pets – even indoors. The photographer can control the zooming speed by turning the barrel – slowly for drama, quickly for performance, or at an intermediate rate. Manual zooming is also available for those looking to take full control.

In macro mode, which can be set by pushing the zoom ring forward while depressing the macro button on the side of the lens, focusing is possible between 8 and 20 inches for close-up shooting with a maximum image magnification of 0.72X (35mm camera equivalent). The L-Fn (Lens Function) button suspends the autofocusing operation temporarily to avoid unintended focusing on obstacles that appear suddenly between the camera and the subject.

Perfect for brilliant still images and high-definition (HD) video capture, the Movie & Still Compatible (MSC) M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ has also been enhanced with a linear motor that drives smooth and quiet autofocusing for stress-free shooting.

New lens elements and glass materials ensure the clearest possible imaging performance, and the proven dust and splashproof mechanism originally featured in the Four Thirds SHG (Super High Grade) series lenses is now incorporated for the first time in a Micro Four Thirds System lens. Multiple sealing rings, fitted throughout the lens body, prevent water splashes and dust from penetrating, making the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 EZ a versatile zoom lens for the toughest conditions."

Its not a particularly small lens but its very light (212g) and is no problem to carry around all day. Its a lens like the Olympus 12mm f/2 in that it has an "interesting things to do with a lens barrel" feature, which allows the changing between manual and electronic zooming and a (semi) macro mode. All of these work well and the lens is well constructed and actually looks very pretty in reality. The early pictures of it made it look very big, but its not really.

Its primary advantage is its usefullness. Its a good zoom range for a kit lens and the semi-macro is very useful, and works well. It focused pretty snappily on all my m4/3 cameras and the electronic zoom is very smooth for video, for which its primarily intended.

Image Quality.

If you are thinking about the possibility of this being a cheaper solution to the 12mm f/2, think again. Its not the same optically. In fact its quite soft. My copy didn't even seem quite as sharp as the 14-42mm kit lenses from both Panasonic and Olympus. However this is all relative and just me being picky. It has some chromatic aberration and fringing, more so on the GX1 than the two Olympus cameras, but about normal for these kind of lenses. 

It doesn't extend when zooming and is quite slow at the telephoto end. Both of these are, I imagine, to keep it relatively small and light, which is obviously a priority for Olympus here. 

As I said its real virtue is its relative versatility in many picture taking situations. Factor in the image stabilisation in Olympus bodies and you have a lens you can use for different picture taking opportunities. Its the usual kit zoom compromise, the classic "jack of all trades, master of none" but it did everything I asked of it and produced decent files. 

In a situation where I don't want to be changing lenses then it would be of great use, but if I was looking for optimum image quality I would use prime lenses. The 12mm end is certainly very useful and does give an extra dimension (2mm!!) over the normal kit lenses of this type. And 50mm at the long end is certainly more than most will give you. 

Its was nice to see that at the long end there was an excellent across the frame performance and certainly it seems to have been engineered very well. As to the weather sealing, since I have no intention of getting it soaking wet, I'll just have to take that on trust!

So all in all, an unspectacular, but handy lens. For my general landscape / location work it will be very useful, and though it appears I'm a little critical of the sharpness, thats nothing that a bit of sharpening can't fix.

Finally, it does occur to me that this lens isn't particularly the most suitable for getting the best out of the OM-D EM-5 and if you want to see what m4/3 is capable of then the 12mm, 20mm, and 45mm prime lenses from Panasonic / Olympus are better options. However the 12-50mm is a decent enough performer to mean that both my Panasonic and Olympus 14-42mm lenses are heading for ebay.

 

Panasonic GX1 Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Olympus E-PL3 m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens + polarising filter  

 

Panasonic GX1 Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens + polarising filter

  

Olympus E-PL3 m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens

Panasonic GX1 Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom lens - in semi-macro mode

   

Interpolation

Does interpolation, the upsizing of digital images, work, is it useful or should it be avoided at all costs?

Anyone who has been involved with submitting images to picture libraries over the years will probably have done quite a lot of it. Certainly in the early days of digital photography, many libraries asked photographers to upsize so as to be on a level playing playing field with film, i.e. to be able to supply the same sizes for print publication. I certainly in the past have upsized many images quite substantially.

One library required 48MB files as a minimum. Using 4MP (11MB) and 6MP (17MB) cameras required a fair amount of upsizing and the images certainly looked somewhat soft and noisy in their blown up state. However I have sold quite a lot of these, including some used at their enlarged size. I've even seen some of them in print, and am always quite surprised at how good they look.

Since I'm currently using a couple of 12MP cameras I was interested to see just what happens when you upsize the files.

Here's a picture I took on my Olympus E-P2 (12MP) Panasonic GX1 (16MP) and Sony NEX-7 (24MP)

Here's the Panasonic GX1 version compared with an upsized version from the E-P2.

Here's the Sony NEX-7 version compared with the E-P2 picture upsized to the same file size as the Sony.

Finally here's the Panasonic GX1 version upsized to the same size as the NEX-7 file.

So the original is "better", but by how much? When the files are reproduced just how much difference will there be? From my experience not that much.

For information, I used an Olympus 45mm f/1.8 on the m4/3 cameras and a 55-210mm zoom on the Sony. Tripod mounted at f/11 and ISO 200. In all examples the upsized file was slightly sharpened as interpolating does slightly soften the image.

Olympus Colour - OM-D samples

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8

In the past I was never a great fan of Olympus colour, but having worked with it and come up with ways to make it work for me, I now like it very much. I've come up with a raw conversion / photoshop workflow that gives me warm, strong and almost Leica colour which seems to be very popular with the people who buy my pictures.

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8

On matters Olympus there are some ISO samples from the OM-D here.

 

http://fourthirds-user.com/2012/02/high_iso_comparison_between_the_olympus_pen_ep3_and_omd_em5.php

The high ISO shots are very impressive, and look to have a 2 stop advantage over previous Olympus m4/3 cameras, and at least a 1 stop improvement over the G3 and GX1. If this is a Panasonic sensor, and all indications are that it is, what on earth have Olympus done to it?  More to the point, why haven't Panasonic done the same? If this high ISO performance turns out to be achievable under all circumstances, then I can imagine quite a few opinions and attitudes towards m4/3 as a system are going to change.

The OM-D EM-5 with its fast AF, high speed shooting, built in EVF, 16MP, modular system and now it seems excellent low noise high ISO performance, is sure to turn a few heads. It almost seems too good to be true and I'm waiting until I get my hands on one to see what it can do in the "real world". However this could be one of the most exciting cameras for years. True professional level performance and features in a small light package. Olympus are reluctant apparently to describe it as such, but that means little, since photographers bother less about how cameras are described than the manufacturers and pundits.

If this high ISO performance is able to be replicated, then it suddenly opens up all sorts of possibilities that we m4/3 users thought were beyond our cameras. The kind of results that, it seems, would be possible with the OM-D and lenses such at the 45mm f/1.8 would suggest that m4/3 is moving to another level. One that I will freely admit, I didn't think it could achieve. Interesting times!

On the shelf

Panasonic GX1, Olympus E-PL3, Olympus E-P2, Sony NEX-5, Sony NEX-7 Panasonic GX1, Olympus E-PL3, Olympus E-P2, Sony NEX-5, Sony NEX-7

My camera shelf is looking somewhat different these days. As you can see I have a bit of a thing for silver CSC's. No DSLR / DSLT, and lots of prime lenses.

I am pretty happy with this lot, who wouldn't be? It does what I want and I enjoy using them all. I mentioned in a previous post about how I don't "love" my NEX-7 or NEX-5n, but I do like them a lot!! The Pens are my favourite, and I'm prepared to work a bit harder with them to get what I want just for the joy of using them. I'm actually becoming very fond of the E-PL3, and because of the layout etc. its a lot easier to use adapted lenses on. 

I'm planning to add an Olympus OM-D to this lot and then suffer all kinds of pangs of guilt about how many unused cameras are sitting there. However with this collection I do want to use them all, and whenever I go out its a real battle as to which one to use. 

Its a bit much, but hey its only money and If I don't use it to have a good time with, what else is it good for? I'm seriously boring in everything else I do, don't drink, smoke, eat a lot, go out much or have a fancy car, so this is my indulgence. The fact that its also my passion and my job gives some justification for it all. It may not last in its current form for very long, but at the moment I'm happy with the collection. 

Kirk Tuck came up with a phrase that went something like - "I don't want to eat steak all the time, sometimes I like Chinese or even hamburger" to explain his flitting from camera system to camera system. I'm much the same, each camera and camera / lens combination offers a new opportunity, a different pallette and an alternative way to record the world. I've still got lots of combinations I haven't tried yet and the prospect of giving them all a go is enticing. 

I'm currently in one of my "no-guilt" phases, having seen off a period of trying to rationalise and get myself down to what I "need". However that was a bit too much of a common sense approach for me and I'm back in a more expansive and experimental state of mind. As you will know this can change on a daily basis, so who knows how I'll feel tomorrow.

But then I've always thought that if you're not prepared to change your mind then life can be a pretty rigid and constricting experience. 

My "new" Olympus m4/3 camera - m4/3 "pixie dust"

So not so new after all. I've just bought this from the Olympus Market refurbished ebay store. It cost me the outrageous sum of £148. German manual and lead, but apart from that brand new and unused.

I love the E-P2! My favourite Olympus Pen and therefore my favourite camera ever. Absolutely gorgeous, a joy to look at and hold. Its fitted with the new VF-3, which is fine for me. Not quite as sharp as the VF-2, but good enough. For me it has the great advantage of being polaroid dark glasses friendly, so any loss of resolution is compensated for by the fact that I can actually see through it with my preferred sunglasses. Another advantage for me is that the E-P2 lets me shoot at ISO 100. Yes I know Olympus say the base ISO is really 200 and you're supposed to get reduced dynamic range, but anyone who has ever used one of these at ISO 100, will know what I know, the files look better, with less luminance noise. However Olympus don't let you have that option anymore. Including the new OM-D. Nikon, Canon, Leica and Sony let you have an (artificial) low ISO option, but not Olympus. Ho-Hum!

Had a brief chance to try it out yesterday in dull, freezing cold weather. But the suns out this morning so I can give it (and the E-PL3) a good workout.

m f/2">

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8

Olympus E-P2 12mm f/2

Olympus E-P2 45mm f/1.8

One things is for sure, that ISO 100 setting certainly shows what the 12mm and 45mm lenses can do. Excellent files, beautifully sharp and very clean. m4/3 is capable of very attractive looking files, if we are allowed to use the best quality settings. (Note to Olympus, please change the firmware in the OM-D to include an ISO 100 option, an ISO 50 option would be nice as well.)

PIXIE DUST

In a recent Dpreview forum, someone quoted from this blog, and also wrote this, which I liked and got me thinking.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&thread=40555632&page=2

"Whatever pixie dust Olympus has "infused" with the E-M5 does seem to be tickling the lizard part of people's brains. I guess it's part marketing, part by design.

Interesting comments about the emotion side of things. That's why I found it intriguing that such a dichotomy exists with those who talk smack about the E-P/L3's shortcomings, yet for some reason still gravitate back to these cameras despite many owning arguably technically superior offerings (NEX/Panasonic bodies etc.)"

So why do I (We) keep coming back to m4/3? Why is the OM-D, easily the most drooled over camera for ages, and apparently has incredible numbers of pre-orders. After all its a 16MP camera (plenty of those about) with this small(er) sensor thats not that great at high ISO and dynamic range. I expect the sensor to be very similar to the GX1, despite Olympus's claims that its not, so a decent performer at low ISO's, but compared to that in the NEX-5n, probably not as good. So why do I want to use that rather than my 5n? Indeed why do I want to use my 12MP Pens rather than the 5n and also the 24MP NEX-7?

Well for me its this.

I just think these things look so "right". The lens to body ratio is right, the design is right, the layout and handling is (mostly) right. These things look good and feel good, and just for good measure they take good pictures too. Not the best maybe, but for those of us who don't want to photograph black cats in a coal mine, freeze a speeding bullet or shoot 12 frames a second of a celebrity embarrassing themselves, they do just fine.

In the 1990's Apple decided to make their computers look more like PC's, with the consequent loss of market share. They almost went under. Whatever you say about Steve Jobs, he knew that to get those lost Apple fans back, something more than just saying how wonderful their product is was required. Style works. Style is appealing. Style makes us buy stuff. We may not know why we like it, we just know we do. Olympus make very pretty cameras. Panasonic do occasionally as well. Sony don't. The NEX-7 may be a great camera but I just don't love it.

When m4/3 started I hoped that it would become what it is turning into now. An attractive, high-end (but not ridiculously expensive) system that would offer benefits in terms of size and weight and not compromise (too much) on image quality. With a series of sensor tweaks Panasonic have achieved terrific stills quality with their sensors, and it should be said almost unbelievably good video capture. They and Olympus have managed to squeeze all sorts of technological goodies into their cameras to satisfy the gadget freaks, while at the same time managing to keep the more traditionally biased photographers happy at the same time. The word harmonious keeps popping into my head. The system seems integrated, thought out, and even though it may have evolved in a somewhat haphazard way, when you put the cameras and lenses together as in the picture above, it looks complementary.

The other phrase I keep thinking about is "democratic leica". By this I mean a Leica sensibility, but one that doesn't need a large amount of disposable income to indulge it. A system that is almost the complete opposite of the large DSLR. Though in the OM-D we may have, somewhat incredibly, the best of both worlds. Plus, whatever we think we should do and despite telling ourselves that it doesn't matter, how many of us would rather take out a camera we think looks good than one which takes better pictures? I'm not ashamed to say that applies to me. After all, as I constantly bang on, there really isn't that much difference between what they all produce anywhere. Put a Nikon D7000 image and a Panasonic GH2 image taken in 3:2 ratio and at ISO 200 side by side in a blind test and ask people to spot the difference. I doubt many could. Print both out or publish them in a magazine and I suspect the differences become less apparent.

I have no trouble whatsoever selling m4/3 shots, for publication, for advertising for all kinds of social and commercial uses. In fact in certain situations people actually prefer the m4/3 "look". If I felt I was compromising my earning potential in any major way, I wouldn't use it, but I don't feel I am, so I can indulge myself happy in the knowledge that I'm able to deliver the goods while still enjoying the experience that goes into that. If I need more pixels then I can always stitch images together anyway.

Reading between the lines of Kirk Tucks post on the OM-D http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2012/02/kirk-tuck-on-olympus-om-d.html I get the impression that, should the camera check out OK, he is planning to use it for his pro work. And why not? Despite all the reservations, all the criticism, all the perceived shortcomings, again and again that small sensor proves itself capable of achieving results, under normal circumstances, that we didn't think it could. If it does this while allowing us to enjoy using the system and yes enjoy the look of it as well, then thats something to be celebrated. I've written some unkind words about Olympus in the past, but the one thing I've consistently made clear is how much I love their designing abilities. Simply the best as far as I'm concerned. And thats something that shouldn't be underestimated, since if we can't take pleasure in what we use, life would be a much less enriching experience.

EVF - useful tool or work of the devil?

I read a particularly luddite article by a photographic commentator in a UK magazine a couple of weeks ago, saying how unspeakable EVF's (Electronic View Finders) were. The author was someone who thinks any camera made after 1950 is the work of the devil and digital is a passing fad, but this was a particularly crass example of the "Everything was better in my day" philosophy.


I find EVF's VERY useful. 


In the link I posted yesterday Michael Reichmann talks about the EVF on the Panasonic GH2.
He says:-


"Potentially the most controversial aspect of the GH2 is its electronic viewfinder. The way that MFT cameras with viewfinders achieve their small size is by substituting the usual mirror box and prism assembly for an electronic viewfinder – essentially a small video screen similar to what one finds on a video camera.
Digicam EVFs tend not to be of very high resolution or brightness, but the one on the GH2 (and the GH1 originally) is very good indeed. In fact, I would say that it is an many instances preferable to the dismal (meant literally) and small optical viewfinders found on the smaller and usually inexpensive DSLRs.
The EVF on the Sony A55 is also very good (though I haven't had a chance to do a side-by-side comparison), and similarly I would prefer these any day to a small and dim optical reflex system, especially those on cheaper systems that use pentamirrors instead of true prisms.
No – these EVFs are not as bright and clear as a good bright reflex system, especially one on a full-frame body. But, the trade-off in size and weight is considerable. Also, the ability to have display overlays, such as a live histogram, goes a long way to making this new alternative viewing system attractive.
Frankly, the writing is on the wall. It won't be more than a few years until the vast majority of new camera model with viewfinders dispense with prisms and mirrors and replace them with EVFs.
Get used to it. It's not that we as photographers are necessarily asking for this (though EVF display technology is getting better all the time). It's just the pressure of industry economics. Price competition is fierce. Moving mirror assemblies and glass prisms are expensive to manufacture and assemble. High quality EVFs are not exactly inexpensive at the moment, but as with all high volume silicon based products, prices will inevitably fall. When that happens mirrors and prisms will be relegated to only the high end, where users are willing to pay for special capabilities.
About 90% of the time I am not displeased using the GH2's EVF. It's even possible to forget that there's anything different going on. But in low light things get a bit weird. With a fast lens (like the remarkable Nokton f/0.95) the view actually becomes brighter than reality and the final result not what one expects."





While some EVF's are far from perfect, and anyone who has tried to focus a manual lens using the Panasonic one for the GF1 and GF2 will know this well, they do have many advantages over the murky tunnel vision of many APS-C DSLR's.

When done well, such as in the Panasonic G series cameras they are a great help. They are still far from perfect, and while I appreciate their brightness in low light, the cranking up of the video gain often makes the image somewhat difficult to decipher. They don't like fast movement much either. However the alternatives create their own problems.



If you've ever used a bolt-on viewfinder like those on rangefinder cameras and cameras like the X1, you'll know some of the problems. These are supposed to help with the framing. However because lenses change their field of view when you focus them, they are only accurate at one setting. Leica viewfinders, and indeed the frame lines in their cameras are apparently set for a distance of either 2 or 3 feet. What this means in reality is if you are taking a picture when you are focusing further than this, you will get more in the picture than the viewfinder indicates. I've learned to adjust for this, but mark this down as yet another little "difficulty" Leica users have to put up with.



The Voigtlander 15-35mm Zoom finder is a bit more helpful, as I can adjust it to compensate for the framing discrepancy. If I use a 20mm lens for example then I set the finder at 18mm and that gives me a much more accurate idea of how the picture is going to turn out.



I mentioned earlier about some of the problems of APS-C viewfinders. My Panasonic L10 is particularly bad. When raised to the eye the viewfinder image is both very distant and dark. In low light its virtually useless.



Newer cameras like my Pentax K-5 are better but still not perfect.

EVF's will undoubtedly improve and indeed we see them getting better all the time. Even with their current limitations, I still prefer them over optical viewfinders. I'm also finding that I'm getting quite frustrated that my DSLR's don't have continuous live view. I've got so used to using cameras like the GH1 and GH2 where the live view runs all the time and when I raise my eye to the viewfinder it switches the image to that. Its a great system and why every camera doesn't do it, seems crazy to me.

It's going to be interesting to see how the hybrid viewfinder on the Fuji X100 works. By offering both electronic and optical options it should in theory be very versatile. Fuji certainly seem to have shown other manufacturers that its possible to get a decent viewfinder integrated into a small body. Whether it does the job well, I'll report back on when I get my hands on one.

Editing

Panasonic GH1 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens


I'm attempting to clear a huge backlog of images that has built up over the last year. Yesterday I was finishing off pictures taken in May 2010. For the most part I'm trying to do this as quickly as possible as I'm planning on changing a few things around in terms of how I work and what I produce. I need to clear last years work ASAP in order to start this. 



Panasonic GH1 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens


In the midst of this however a few pictures appear that I want to linger over and work on to get the best out of them.



Panasonic GH1 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens



Panasonic GH1 20mm f1.7 Pancake lens



Olympus E-P2 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens
Multi-Image Panoramic stitch


Images - David and Ann